Former Home Affairs chief Mike Pezzullo tears into Albanese's 'unoriginal' tribute to John Curtin in 'mythical' portrait of legendary PM

Sky News AU

15-07-2025

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recent portrait of John Curtin was an unoriginal and mythic repetition of the Curtin tropes.
He painted Curtin as a canonised Labor hero who locked horns with Churchill over the return of Australian troops from the Middle East, and who maintained a ceaseless vigil as those troops made their way home by sea.
Somehow this was a declaration of independence, when Australia, supposedly for the first time, thought and acted for itself.
Never mind Alfred Deakin building our own navy before World War I, or Billy Hughes pursuing our security interests after that war at the Paris Peace Conference.
The real Curtin was a courageous political leader who, after being appointed Prime Minister in October 1941, did his best to mobilise the Australian people for the coming war in the Pacific.
In December 1941, he famously turned to the US.
He had little choice but to appeal desperately for US military assistance, as Australia could not defend itself, and could not rely upon Britain, which was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany.
Curtin knew that Australia would be a crucial base for future US operations against Imperial Japan.
First, however, Australia would have to be defended.
In early 1942, he and Churchill had a disagreement over the disposition of Australian forces.
Curtin wanted them to return home; Churchill wanted them sent to Burma.
The resultant flurry of cables between the two was a minor dance of allies arguing over war strategy.
Churchill and Roosevelt had far more serious arguments, especially over the invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe.
In 1944, as James Curran showed in Curtin's Empire (2011), after the danger to Australia had passed, Curtin tried to resuscitate the idea of 'imperial defence', whereby Britain and its self-governing British dominions would better coordinate their defence strategies and foreign policies.
Curtin turned back to the British Empire, which is surely an inconvenient blindspot in the mythic origin story of an 'independent' Australian foreign policy.
Forget such myths.
A grittier and unsanctified version of Curtin would serve us better today.
Indeed, that Curtin would be a leader for these dark days.
With a largeness of mind and a strength of character, the Curtin of history grasped the terrible reality that global circumstances did not suit his agenda of socialistic reform.
Instead, he had to focus on questions of war.
After he became Leader of the Opposition in 1935, Curtin recognised that he would have to champion what was, for him and his party, an unnatural cause – namely, how best to independently defend Australia, at a time when the prevailing orthodoxy was to rely on Britain, and its naval base in Singapore.
Had Curtin won the elections of 1937 and 1940, Australia would have been better prepared.
The national panic of 1941-42 might have been avoided.
Australia might have even re-armed in time to be able to deploy a powerful force in its sea-air approaches to confront Imperial Japan's southwards thrust.
Perhaps, Australia might have 'looked to America' sooner - but demanding the final say in its own local defence.
Those who would seek to appropriate Curtin's legacy should not be allowed to admire only what he did as a wartime leader.
To honour him properly, we have to ask what a modern-day Curtin would do in the face of a looming war.
While working tirelessly for peace through diplomacy, Curtin today would be vocal about the threat posed by China.
He would argue for greater defence self-reliance and dramatically increased defence spending.
He would be concerned about the threat of missile and air attack, offensive cyber strikes, raids in remote areas, attacks on shipping, and so on.
He would be deeply engaged with his professional advisers on how best to deal with these military problems.
He would show a deep interest in complex matters of war.
He would recognise that, in a new 'look to America', ANZUS would need to become a warfighting alliance, with a standing headquarters (but this time headed by an Australian).
He would authorise the development of war plans, including jointly with the United States.
He would ask to see those war plans, and to approve them.
He would also give priority to home defence, mobilisation, defence production, and the introduction of national service.
The problem with meeting our heroes is that they always disappoint us.
Meeting the real Curtin – the one who was focused on technical military issues, even if that meant setting aside a socialistic reforming zeal – would disappoint the Prime Minister.
That, however, is the Curtin that we need today.
The Curtin who in the 1930s was concerned that Australia was not doing enough to get ready, and who would today be deeply concerned to see history repeating itself.
Michael Pezzullo was the Home Affairs Secretary from December 2017 until November 2023.